In Salisbury, Connecticut, ‘gender trouble’ took place during a local election in 1843,1 as the ‘sex’ of one voter was contested. Allegedly, the Whig Party had introduced – what was contested as – a woman into the electorate. Determining the ‘sex’ of the voter was necessary to judge whether the ballot could be validly cast. A medical expert was summoned. An imperforated penis and a small testicle were found. This discovery temporarily resolved the dispute, and the person was admitted to the vote. On Election Day, however, the voter was denied electoral rights. Since the ‘sex’2 of the voter was subject to further controversy, two more doctors were called in to consult. The presence of a testicle was established, thus ‘legitimizing’ the vote. Yet a few days later, it became known that the individual menstruated. A third examination was deemed necessary, which led to the discovery of a uterus. The person, referred to as ‘the hermaphrodite’,3 was concluded to have ‘unduly used the right to vote’.4 This story widely reverberated.5 Not only had it shed light on what ‘sex’ was understood to be, it also hinted at the ultimate reason for gender-based rules of political franchise: What would have happened if a woman had been able to slip into the electorate? Furthermore, why should this or that specific biological characteristic be the determining factors in this case? Such ‘gender troubles’ were not limited to the public sphere. For example, the French Court of Cassation had to decide on the ‘sex’ of one of two spouses to determine the validity of their marriage in 1903. That court relied on the external appearance of genitals.